Airasia Compensation 1 15 Lakh Passport Stain Woman Job Australia

Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held Air Asia liable for “deficiency in services” and “unfair trade practices” and directed the airlines to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs 1 lakh along with costs of Rs 15,000 for denying a boarding pass to a woman over a stain on her passport, as a result of which she got delayed and eventually lost her job in Australia.

A bench consisting of B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), C Lakshmi Prasanna (Member), and V Janardhan Reddy (Member) was hearing a complaint filed by a woman who had alleged deficiency in services and unfair trade practices by airline companies, who had denied her a boarding pass, which caused her to lose her job in Australia.

“The act of retaining the amounts for the services not rendered is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No 3 and 4 (Air Asia). Therefore, the act of opposite parties No 3 and 4 has certainly caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant,” the May 29 order read.

It was also stated that the act of retaining the amounts for the services not rendered is nothing but a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the airline company, and hence, the act had indeed caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant.

It was also held by the commission that the woman was allowed to travel without any problem on other airlines using the same passport and therefore she was entitled to a refund of the amount paid by her towards the flight ticket along with just and reasonable compensation and costs.

It was the finding of the commission that there was nothing on record to show that the woman had taken any service from Air India Express, and hence the complaint against the airline company was dismissed.

Air Asia, however, was held liable for the inconvenience and mental agony caused and was directed by the district commission to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs 1 lakh along with costs of Rs 15,000 so the ends of justice could be met.

Advocate DSVG Nagaraju, appearing on behalf of the woman, argued that despite having a confirmed flight ticket issued by the airlines and a valid passport, the airlines have refused to issue a boarding pass because there is a stain on the passport.

It is contended by the counsel that although the stain has existed on the passport for more than 5 years and the woman has been travelling between India and Australia, she has not faced any issue for all the years when she has gone to the University of South Australia to pursue her MBA.

Advocate VVNK Sarath Saran, representing Air India Express, contended that the complaint was frivolous and did not contain merits as far as Air India Express was concerned. It was also submitted that Air India did not provide passenger services on international routes.

The counsel argued that no case was made out against them as code on the flight tickets of the woman was ‘AK’ and the flights operated by Air India had the code of ‘15’. It was further urged that the complaint was not valid regarding them, and hence no relief could be claimed.

Advocate V Subba Rao, appearing for Air Asia, contended that the airline had issued a ticket to the woman subject to applicable statutory requirements, aviation regulations and conditions of carriage governing international air travel.

It was further submitted that the passport of the woman was damaged, the visa had stains on the pages, and that soiled and damaged passport squarely fell within the category of invalid travel documentation, justifying the refusal of boarding.

It was argued that the opposite parties had acted in a bona fide and reasonable manner, strictly in compliance with the laws and regulatory requirements. The counsel stated that the staff of the airline had exercised “due diligence and reasonable discretion” after verifying the condition of the passport and after getting inputs from the concerned immigration authorities.

It was further submitted that a decision taken by another airline at a later point in time could not affect their lawful decision and that each carrier is entitled to exercise its own discretion based on the facts and circumstances at the relevant time.

Lately, it was urged that the alleged loss of employment opportunity, alternate ticket expenses and mental agony claimed by the woman were remote, speculative and unsubstantiated.